Slavery: Does the Bible Endorse It? | Doug Wilson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лют 2022
- In this episode of Doug Reacts, Pastor Doug Wilson responds to Sam Harris's comments in a conversation with Ben Shapiro about the bible and slavery.
For more from Doug, check out mycanonplus.com/tabs/discover...
Doug Reacts is a series of apologetics reaction videos brought to you by Canon Press.
For more from Doug on slavery and the Bible, check out mycanonplus.com/tabs/search/books/416
Douglas Wilson needs to stop gas lighting christendom with his opinions on slavery. He knows he messed up his image around this topic.
@@cryptic8043 you're mad that you're wrong lol. That's why you've got no Scripture, no argument, just your own best attempt at gaslighting, ironically
@@horrificpleasantry9474 What? Just go read what Douglas wrote about slavery in America; he wrote that African American slaves were happy...So, no, you missed on this one.
@@cryptic8043 And you know that the ones he was talking about were not? Or is your argument to the contrary predicated on the assumption that no slaves, anywhere, were ever happy? Heck, I can point you to polls asking Democrat voters if they're happy to easily show you that slaves CAN be happy.
@@cryptic8043 I'm not familiar with Wilson's writings on slavery. But I have read part of "Slave Narratives".
Did Wilson say that *all* slaves were happy, or that some were?
If he said that some were, then he's right. Go read "Slave Narratives". Some of the freed slaves that were interviewed for that project said that they missed living on the plantation, and that life was better for them back then. Their words. ..and you don't have the right to change their words.
When I first got to my church 3 years ago they were preaching through Philemon and that's how I knew they weren't too wimpy to hit the hard topics and had courage
I knew when I got to the right church when they were teaching Leviticus ..
@@JonJaeden yeah. Animal sacrifice is really good to wrap your head around.
@@formerfundienowfree4235 You missed the BBQ? Bummer ...
I redeemed (purchased) sixteen children from slavery in Sudan for $78.00 a child. Among them was a fifteen year old girl who had a two year old boy and a 4-5 month both old girl from the slave owner. I walked them out a couple hours to the south and they were fed and treated medically and turned over to their family members. Slavery still exists and it is brutal and it is all over North Africa and all the way up to Pakistan. There is also a large network for slaves as organ donors for their owners in China and Saudi Arabia.
This is sadly true, and we can thank Christianity for this.
Thanks, Mr KT
@@YZ1N31 Nope
@@YZ1N31 Sudan. Primary Language: Arabic (70% majority). Primary Religion: Islam (97%).
@@naev0 Yes islam does also fails to condemn slavery. Funny how an all powerful god can condemn the eating of shellfish and picking up sticks on the sabbath but not: owning another human being and beating him with a rod...
Shapiro needs to have pastor Wilson on his show someday. That'd be pretty cool.
They both and wilsen need Neville Goddard who experienced being Jesus like David knew what you think only happened 2000 YEARS ago David in you like Paul was in Saul no man or religion did it inside us. Jesus was pattern that wasn't seen outside, only in us, Luke 17: HINTED ABOUT WHERE IT IS NOT SEEN OUTSIDE! 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Romans 11:31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Doug wouldn't be intrested in people challenging him its obvious n Shapiro would look at him as a dogmatic situation then a discussion or debate
@@tye9713 “Doug wouldn’t be interested in people challenging him.”
His debates with Christopher Hitchens say otherwise.
@@berglen100
You know the first step in convincing people is actually writing coherent sentences.
@@berglen100 wut
For honest skeptics concerned about this issue, I recommend the biblical treatise presented by abolitionist preacher Joseph Eldridge: Does the Bible sanction slavery? A discourse delivered at Norfolk, Conn., February 24, 1861.
It is not long, but it addresses all of the relevant texts. Eldredge draws his abolitionist conclusions from scripture alone.
Doug Wilson's final point is also relevant. We inherited a world in which society already condemns slavery. Such a society was handed down to us by western abolitionist Christians. It is very rich for atheists to say that they came to the abolitionist ideology on their own and did not inherit it from these Christians. It's even worse for atheists to then turn and blame Christianity for the very thing that western Christianity abolished. They want to enjoy the fruit of righteousness while hypocritically condemning the foundations thereof.
Moreover, unlike the abolitionist preachers like Eldridge, atheists have no solid standard by which to morally judge slavery, other than the consensus that they inherited from the Christian west.
Sam Harris is far less informed on this issue than he thinks, and even a casual review of abolitionist biblical scholarship could have disabused him of his intellectual error and sociological hubris here. He is as much a creature of his time as anyone else.
A printed version of the Joseph Eldridge treatise on slavery in the Bible can be found on Amazon by Cornell University Press.
It's interesting when people talk about slavery thousands of years ago, then it immediately jumps to 1860 in the antebellum south with nothing in between.
Ty. Right out the gate you stopped & corrected but whom is listening and questioning isn't listening.
Cant wait to see this channel getting more visibility! Nice work, Doug btw Philemon is a beautiful letter
For an intellectual you would think that Sam would have a much better grasp of the difference in definitions between "endorses" and "acknowledges".
...except Moses (God) does actually *endorse* certain forms of slavery in Lev 25, saying that the Israelites may keep Gentile slaves as properly forever.
I'm no fan of Harris, but he's right on that point.
well... I guess we know why Harris never mentions where or how the Bible "endorses" slavery then.
@@ChewbacaTW God acknowledging slavery and accepting it for any amount of time is disgracefully immoral.
Killing and stealing was big business around that time aswell.....yet god could clearly command them to be ended right away. thats a weak god to be fair. bending to human trends at the time.
If the police acknowledge an underage kid drinking and does nothing then that cop in fact is endorsing underage drinking by allowing it to happen.
Of course they would be wrong 🤣🤣🤣 I'm judging he is no better than a junior high school bully on the playground
Exodus 21: 16: 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
Exodus 21: 20 "20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
How does one gain a slave without them at one point having been stolen? And, if one consents to being a “slave” at one point in time, can they remove consent at a later time without having to “run away”?
@@BornOnThursday It was often someone sold themselves into for an agreed upon amount of time for an agreed upon amount of compensation. Also, and don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that those taken as a result of war weren't considered 'stolen'.
@@BornOnThursday "How does one gain a slave without them at one point having been stolen"
The only Biblically permissible way is if the person who is to be a slave voluntarily enters into an employment contract with you in exchange for a set wage, food, and housing, in exchange for your assumption of all his debt liabilities.
@@LawlessNate Well, it's not like they (likely “young women”) had anything left from their old life after everything else was killed, including the cattle, and everything else was either taken (“stolen”) or destroyed, so I suppose it was an act of “mercy”.
@@BornOnThursday 1. Settle a debt.
2. Prisioner of war.
3. Volunteer
If those seem far-fetched, I'm going to bet you've never lived in a third-world country (I have)
Leviticus 25:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
It doesn't matter how slavery worked for Israelites or "indentured servitude." It doesn't matter how much "worse" Roman-Greco slavery was. Foreign slaves, even legal residents from foreign lineage, were bought, sold, and slaves for life, and granted to your children as inherited property. This is what your god did not merely ignore, but explicitly regulated.
Apologize for god all you want. It's right there in his book.
@Ryan Hanekamp, Exodus 21:16
@@willielee5253 Leviticus says to buy them, not to kidnap them. Verse 44.
@@grumpylibrarian yes, I agree with you as well. I may have tagged your statement by oversight.
Read the whole chapter and work it in with all the other passages in the Pentateuch that regulate slavery. Lev 25 is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery.
In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately.
But when their debt was paid off, they were to be released , no matter who was holding them.
Add to that this point: if anyone anywhere was found with a kidnapped person, they were up for execution. That includes buying a foreign slave that was kidnapped. (So much for the TransAtlantic Slave Trade).
Hebrews could only buy slaves that were debt slaves, and like any other slave, could only keep them till their debt was paid off. (but Hebrew slaves were released in the year of Jubilee, and the debtee had to suck it up, smile and take the loss like a good Jew). To keep them past their debt is kidnapping. And we know what the Bible says about kidnappers, right? Right?? They get executed.
And Hebrews could not be cruel to their slaves, whether Hebrew or foreign. If they were too cruel, the slave went free.
Suffice it to say, 18th century slavery was *nothing* like the slavery in the Bible.
- -
If you can't stomach that, please be morally consistent and call for the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. Because if you distill the basic ingredients of Biblical slavery, you'll see it's essentially identical to modern prison systems of the West: no kidnapping; no cruelty; transfer from warden to warden if the warden so chooses; release when debt is satisfied.
Thanks.
@@timfoster5043 You cite Lev 25 but in Lev 25 it specifically states that the foreign slaves are kept and passed on as permanent *property,* never to go free. Even worse, all Hebrew women, and child servants were not to go free as the Hebrew males do, unless they came in with him. Exodus 21. Also, the no cruelty was only for Hebrew slaves, again in Lev 25, because of Israel's previous enslavement, but no such provision exists for Gentile slaves.
Excellent analysis which begs a very fundamental question: why do humans have value and where does this value come from?
"By what standard"
@@thirstypilgrim97 Not sure what you mean.
@@zeraphking1407 He's agreeing with you. "By what standard" is the basic retort to any atheistic claim that something is objectively moral or immoral.
@@YZ1N31 In that case, we never truly know what morality is because it's always evolving.
Not only that, there's no basis for right and wrong based solely on evolution and time.
@@zeraphking1407 Overtime humans that worked together survived together, and a moral code was derived vie that cooperation. This is why there is no universal moral code, or a universal right or wrong like Christians assert, instead we see culturally diverse moral codes that are vastly different from one culture to the next. Are you daft and think that we just woke up and had a universal code lolol.
It is incredibly disingenuous when people make false claims to support their arguments. It shows that they don't care about the truth.
Yup. It is sad that Christians have to lie to defend their beliefs.
The thing you have to remember about Sam Harris is is his way of speaking is deliberate. He thinks it makes him sound pensive and thoughtful, but really it’s just a smoke screen for a very confused man who wants to have his cake and eat it too. I thought this back when I was an atheist and I think it now.
Whether sam speaks pensive or not has no impact on the veracity of his argument. The bible unequivocally endorses slavery but you look to condem Sam's way of speaking 🤔🤔🤔 This more than demonstrates the fragility of apologists arguments
If you can ignore every distinction made in this video to still falsely characterize this as “unequivocally endorsing slavery” you are an intellectually dishonest ignoramus with no argument. Cope.
@Exodus 21:16
@@willielee5253 *You are unable to provide any examples of God saying DO NOT OWN PEOPLE AS PROPERTY* *So instead you cite a verse forbidding "man stealing" or "kidnapping"* 👇👇 *read on*
*"KIDNAPPING" is NOT "slavery" its forbidden to steal slaves NOT to OWN them*
*To say DO NOT* _"STEAL"_ *CARS is completely different than DO NOT* _"OWN"_ *CARS*
*Your desire to conflate the two more than adequately demonstrates both the hypocrisy and fragility of your position*
@@trumpbellend6717 let's agree to disagree for the sake of not arguing over the Law.
When being presented with this argument, we always need to define our terms clearly, and must not let the slavery that is allowed in the Mosaic Law be conflated with modern slavery. When we think of modern slavery, we mostly think of essentially kidnapping someone and then selling them. Exodus 21:16 clearly condemns this, sentencing both the seller and the buyer to death.
True for individuals, but war was also a legitimate method of obtaining slaves. So, one person can’t just go and kidnap people, but one nation may enslave another.
@@vejoshiraptor Both are awful.
@@BornOnThursday says who?
Historical tip: not all the slaves of the Middle Passage were kidnapped. According to Ghanian and Nigerian historians, some of them were indeed prisoners of war ...and therefore fair game for enslavement as per Lev 25.
(Both cruelty and kidnapping were prohibited, so the Transatlantic slave trade was mostly unbiblical.)
@@vejoshiraptor Oh boy.
Haven’t heard the upload yet but… I’ve recently realized (my interpretation) all of the “wives submit to husbands” and “slaves to masters” all of the quips taken out of context reveal a theme of us ALL submitting ourselves to one another - truly serving one another - you know? And there’s real beauty in this idea/teaching - I mean isn’t it TIME we all get OVER ourselves 😂 I believe so ♥️ love to you reading this - genuine love I have for you 🥰
Do you think *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround"* is just a "quip" taken out of context ???
I think the last argument was the best. Sam said, "we think it is evil despite the Bible". Well, Atheists would have to have outlawed it in spite of their belief as well. The difference is, "woulda, shoulda, coulda"
@Yup Yup condones or allows?
The Old Testament is not the standard for salvation. The Old Testament predates the filling of the Holy Spirit in man.
Matthew 11:11 KJV - Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
In other words, the most righteous man until Christ is not the standard of salvation. We are called to be greater than Job and John the Baptist.
This will make things far clearer.
1. David would not be allowed in 90% of today's churches, yet God used him to write Scripture.
2. Abraham had 2 wives at the same time that we know about.
3. Noah got drunk and paraded around naked
4. Jacob had 4 wives
5. Solomon had 700 wives
6. Moses disobeyed a direct AUDIBLE command from God's voice, killed a man, and refused to speak to Pharaoh in the presence of God.
The Old Testament has not been the highest standard since Christ. Hence, Christ said MANY times, "but I say unto you."
This is why I don't listen to atheists that tell me what Christianity is about.
Precisely....no more than you would take instructions from a man on how to scuba dive...who doesn't even believe underwater exists.
@@OneMan-wl1wj No.
Instead, ask a handful of Christians and get a handful of responses.
I mean Ben can’t tell you what Christianity is about.
Sam would never want you to listen to him read the dang book for yourself
God does not need to be rescued and neither does his word. Too many people try to cover for the Bible by saying slavery in the Old Testament was indentured servitude. It is true that Hebrews were made bondservants and could not be made slaves, but Israel could buy and capture non-Hebrew slaves which were never freed from slavery (Deut. 20:10-14; Lev. 25:39-46). These slaves were referred to as being the money of the owner in Exodus 21:21. It's funny when people quote Exodus 21:20 trying to minimize Israel's slavery of people and ignore verse 21:21. Slavery from a biblical perspective is not inherently evil. Chattel slavery, as was often practiced, was evil because even slaves are made in the image of God. There is a biblical argument for slavery today being wrong, but there is really no way to argue slavery is inherently evil from the Scripture.
Douglas Wilson impresses me very smart seems like a kind guy
If there's one thing we shouldn't be doing, it's mistaking one step in a process for the end goal. You can't tell someone to completely give up some aspect of their life one day and expect them to say "Sounds great!" Rather, you give them a compass that directs each step they take. The Torah law was the first step towards the downfall of slavery over 2000 years later. Call us humans slow if you want, but the Bible does not call the institution of slavery itself a good.
Lol dear oh dear, did your god not make laws stating that the gathering of sticks on the sabsth was punishable by death ?? Did he have to "phase that in" because presumably stick gathering was quite prevalent back then 🤣😅🤣
How about eating shellfish fish or wearing cloths of mixed fabric ? because again your God made laws banning it. Priorities I guess 🤔😜
Are you asserting that such a being would have to bend his "perfect" moral guidance to accommodate the traditions and wishes of ancient slave masters ????
This is how pathetic your argument is, its equivalent to a pimp saying to a judge in court
_"i dont agree with prostitution your honour, but the girls were gonna do it anyway_ _so I'm just looking after them, making it a safer kinda prostitution"_
Pity Sam Harris. Romans 1 darkened mind is strong in this one.
Haha love the yoda
What about the fact that there is an entire book of the Bible, namely Exodus, which is about leading people out of Slavery! Exodus also forms the foundation for the gospel idea that that in Christ we are truly made free from the worst form of slavery: sin!
The bigger question: why does Sam Harris care so much?
Jumped the gun! Of course Doug covered this. :)
Probably because he’s anti religious, for this exact reason, and he’s concerned.
@@DM-dk7js *_anti religious_* Good to know he's not anti-Bible because they are two very different things.
@@joelockhart6986 yeah. I mean, he’s anti slavery. That’s why he’s concerned.
@@DM-dk7js is slavery bad? Or is it just your opinion that you in particular don't like it?
Yea Ben is righter than Sam. But neither have the Holy Spirit. GO uncle DOUG!
lol
I have a feeling this channel is going to blow up.
I got a question I have seen that there are many gods that have very similar virgin births as Jesus and many other things. As a Christian how would I argue this if an atheist asked me that the Bible took other religions since it wasn’t first or something.
"I came to you preaching nothing but Christ crucified and a display of the Spirit's power so that your faith might not rest on man's wisdom, but on God's power."
It also says, "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His divine nature and eternal power, have been clearly seen so that men are without excuse." And, finally, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, any God besides you."
So, starting from revelation from the Bible, the man asking that question is not sincere. He knows your right if he takes enough time to be honest with himself. You are not there, then, to convince a man of anything new, but to, like Jesus did, draw them to the place that God is already working in them. "Let us keep in step with the Spirit.", and, again, "He who does not sow with me scatters."
That being said, you're better off asking him if he is willing to seek God and let God defend Himself in his life because, although there may be many similar stories, that doesn't do away with the idea that they could be true. In fact, the fact that it seems to be a common revelation related back to the idea that what can be known about God, as it says in Romans, is clear to everyone. Now, he can say that perhaps everyone is just making things up and working together with what works, but if God does exist and defend Himself, then that will prove which story is true.
Most of the time the person will be unwilling to allow you and agree with you to ask God to remind them or show up in new ways. It's because they already are resisting His voice. Sometimes they will say ok, and just never get back to you, because, again, they're resisting His voice. But there's been a few who will after a few days or a week just say, "He never showed up.", which is fine. Well, with me it's fine. I've had God show up in some real important ways in both my own life and stories from others in doing this that it's not a question as to whether God did or will show up. He did and He has and He will again. XD
Like, literal gold and jewels on the floor for me to walk on, dude. It's super silly just how clear God can be when you start pursuing asking Him to defend His son and stop trying to be the smartest person in the room building other's faith on your silly little mind instead of the finger of God.
Thanks man. I needed that
Pursue God in your own life because He shows no favoritism. Do the things you know you ought to do. "Draw near to Me and I still draw near to you." "Purify your hands."
As you move closer to God and listen to His voice, that will strengthen you to reach others. It's only when you have connection with the head that your life and doctrine will go in the right direction. "Apart from me you can do nothing."
"Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord must turn from wickedness." If you find yourself in trouble with your faith, more often than not, it's because of insincerity that has crept in.
"Sin is lawlessness." Everything that Satan does and that the flesh desires is to get you to stop focusing on obeying God. That's the whole point of evil in the world, to cause disobedience. So, next time you find yourself moving in a direction from obeying God, stop, and ask yourself, "What is the heart of this and where is it leading?" Does God make it hard to follow Him?
There are not.. Look up the"copycat hub" on the website tektonics
Leviticus 245:
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Seems the answer to your question is "yes", Doug. Happy to educate you.
Read the whole chapter. That passage is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery.
In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately.
BUT - - before you get too far down that road, you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves. All 3 cultures used the same root word of 'slave', but they meant radically different things by it. You can tell this by the rules each culture had for how a person became a slave and how a person was freed from slavery.
- Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. 3 of them were capital offenses in ancient Hebrew culture.
- For example, in GR culture, if you kidnapped some wayward non-Roman, you could keep him as a slave and/or buy/sell such persons. In ancient Hebrew culture, ANYONE found in possession of a kidnapped person would be executed. Period.
- In ancient Hebrew culture, you could only become a slave if you sold yourself to pay off debts, or if a tribunal found you guilty of a crime and you lacked the funds to compensate the injured party. You became their slave until the debt was paid off (or the master could sell you for the amount of the debt if he didn't want to abide with you for that amount of time). The sold slave would work for the new master until the debt was paid (or the Year of Jubilee came [unless it was a Gentile slave]), and after the debt was paid, he was free (whether Hebrew or Gentile). Keeping him beyond his debt was kidnapping. And we know what happens to kidnappers, right? Right??
- Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves. If the cruelty hit a certain level, the slave went free, and the master lost out on his debt.
- When a slave was released, the master was to provide him with material goods so he could make his way back out into the world, and he was to do so joyfully, treating his ex-slave as the brother he was.
- If a slave's debts surpassed what he could work off in his lifetime, that debt could be passed on to his heirs (we do the same with our tax laws today).
If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. After all, they are defacto slaves to the government. Like ancient slaves, they do not control their location or their labor, and they can be transferred from master (ie, warden) to master without their say-so, and their wardens cannot be cruel to them, and after they've paid their debt, they are to be freed. (If you boil it down to its core, prison inmates are indeed essentially identical to ancient slaves.)
Thanks.
@@timfoster5043
That passage says nothing about the year of Jubilee. Nothing at all. What is says is that foreign slaves could be kept for life and passed down as inheritance.
Point blank.
Read the whole chapter.
"Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off"
Nope. Gentile slaves could be kept for life. That is what the passage explicitly states.
Read the whole chapter.
"you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves"
Foreigners who were slaves of the Israelites were chattel slaves, no different than the chattel slaves of the antebellum south. Probably worse, in fact.
"Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. "
Hebrews took acquired foreign slaves by capturing enemy non-combatants, by purchasing from slaves traders, and by breeding new slaves into captivity. Which of those methods do you consider moral?
"Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves."
There were no laws protecting foreign slaves. Exodus 21 details that Hebrew slaves could be beaten nearly to death, and Leviticus 25 states the foreign slaves could be treated more harshly than that.
Ready your Bible.
"When a slave was released,"
Foreign slaves were not released.
"If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere."
Prisoners are wards of the state, not chattel slaves. If chattel slavery sounds moral to you, well, I guess that just makes you a Christian.
You're welcome for the Bible lesson. It was a pleasure educating you.
@@cygnusustus > That passage says nothing about the year of Jubilee. Nothing at all.
I stand corrected. You're right. You said Lev 24:5 (well, technically you said Lev 245), and it says absolutely nothing about the Year of Jubilee.
Lev 25, however, is all about the Year of Jubilee, and how everything has to be released: land (v13), houses (v32), and Hebrew slaves (v40-41). ..But Gentile slaves owned by Hebrews don't get released that year; they are kept for the duration, even if that duration is their life (v44), and Hebrew slaves owned by Gentiles should be redeemed by relatives in the Year of Jubilee (v47-50).
Note how the verses you find so offensive are in the middle of verses talking about things and persons released in the Year of Jubilee! If you say you don't see the Year of Jubilee in ch 25, then you're not reading. It is literally mentioned 13 times!
So the "keep them for life / pass them on as inheritance" portion is clearly and obviously there for the purposes of contrasting them to the way Hebrew slaves are to be treated. But even then, they are not to be kept beyond their debt service because that would be kidnapping!
You have a very disjointed way of reading the Bible. The way you read v44 ignores the fact that Hebrews are **NEVER** allowed to keep kidnapped persons, whether Hebrew or Gentile. And nowhere in the Bible are they permitted to breed slaves.
You're quite out of step with the ancient world, probably because you see all of the world through the lens of Western forms of slavery. I wonder if you've ever read rabbinical commentaries on these passages.
And while you're at it, you should try traveling and living in a 3rd world for a time - step outside your ivory bubble and get a fresh perspective of humanity. It'll do you good to learn that not everyone sees the world the way you do.
Thanks.
Like most intellectuals, Harris always stops his research into a topic once he finds something that supports what he already thinks. Any time he is asked to dive deeper into a topic he is shown to be a very uncritical thinker. A child continuously asking 'why' would get to the bottom of these issues faster than someone like him. Someone who genuinely wanted to get to the truth of a matter would be asking why the bible says what it does or how does that fit in with the world it was written in. But Harris never asks these questions. He simply finds snippets of text and uses them without any context or analysis.
The common problem with the human mind. The ego. I have been guilty of this many times. Due diligence is now my way of life. Now atheism is ridiculous due to the vastness of my own mind and existence.
Although I agree with your statement, this is true for religious people aswell.
@@YZ1N31 I could agree with you but as of yet no other deity or dogma has surpassed Christianity. My life is a testimony of the supernatural either that or I'm delusional. I lean towards Christ most of all though.
@@hugomiguel6319 I would say a dogma of women abuse, homosexuality, child beating isn't quite the dogma I would align with.
@@YZ1N31 except most people aren't public intellectuals pretending to have brilliant insights into things. Lots of people have logical deficiencies, but it's these pseudo intellectuals who influence people with their poorly researched opinions.
I live just north of Seattle, and the more I see/experience of the rampant state-sponsored vagrancy and transience, the more I am convinced the only way out for this society is some sort of indentured servitude: a set of work camps/rehab centers... not only for the benefit of society, but to rescue some (to rescue all would be impossible) of the drug-addicted, mentally ill, work-allergic people that our welfare state has created/enabled.
In ancient times...before welfare stateism ...SLAVERY was an institution that provided a significant percentage of indegent society with a reasonable survivability..as long as there were strong laws protecting the slaves welfare & justice...
Modernity knows nothing of history..so slavery can be nothing but bady bad..
@@jd-jw8hm So true... except for the first part "ancient times": slavery was ubiquitous everywhere before 1850.
The myth vision UA-cam channel has done a reaction to this video, I’d love to see how Doug responds to their biblical slavery criticism (apart from the way they carry themselves)
One look at their channel tells me I care not what the Pagan has to say.
Leviticus 25:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
This definitely condones slavery; it then goes further with an endorsement since it says slaves are to be inheritance.
@Charlie Renfro, Exodus 21:16.
Sam Harris and others like Dawkins, both educated men, are clearly willfully ignorant when it comes to the Bible. It’s always interesting how these guys, while denying the Bible, actually prove it’s veracity.
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”
Romans 1:22
It’s simple they love there sin and they want to glorify it not ask for forgiveness from our redeemed saviour Jesus Christ our Lord. That’s what it all comes too there is no need to be analytical, that is all a facade for wanting to live in sin
Harris nor Dawkins have proven the Bible’s veracity.
Bro the bible literally condones slavery, it says it explicitly many times...its Christians that will look at the text and try and interpret it differently. If the Bible literally says YOU CAN BUY SLAVES FROM THE HEATHEN THAT SURROUND YOU, its the christians that realize "oh shit this is an immoral book, I better pretend like it means something else"
@@twokidsmovies can you help me interpret this?
“We know that the law is *NOT MEANT* for a *RIGHTEOUS PERSON* , but for *THE LAWLESS AND REBELLIOUS* , for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral and males who have sex with males, *FOR SLAVE TRADERS* , liars, perjurers, and *FOR WHATEVER ELSE IS CONTRARY TO SOUND TEACHING* “ 1 Timothy 1:9-10
@@glassmw9823 1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." MOST IMPORTANTLY: "20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Interpret that for me I beg you......
I'll save y'all some time.
The Atlantic Slave trade allowed people to purchase human beings from a foreign nation, based on their ethnicity, and own them as property for life. There was no requirement that these people be ensured to be in bondage of their own volition, and whilst man stealing was a crime in America, it happened in places where it was not. These slaves could be beaten, although there were laws prohibiting how excessively.
Sounds abhorrent, right?
This is exactly what the Biblical slavery laws allow as well. Abhorrent.
@Dr. Rick Marshall, Exodus 21:16.
@@willielee5253 Say's Hebrews may not kidnap people (unless of course it's the multiple occasions YHWH permits this), the US had this law too, it says nothing of purchasing an already kidnapped person from nations surrounding you or ensuring slaves you purchase are not kidnapped.
@@drrickmarshall1191 it's pretty much a non argument, enslavement is enslavement.
@@willielee5253 I agree, enslavement is enslavement, immoral no matter the parameters. This comment is clearly not for those who understand this and I wish this was a non-argument, in reality it is, but some people require the arguing against unfortunately.
@@drrickmarshall1191 agree!!!
The amount of lack ignorance and flat out dishonesty of Sam Harris is astounding
Not as "astounding" as the incoherence of your comment.
"For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved." 2 Peter 2:19. From the Christian perspective the human race is a slave to sin and death, or to the fear of man.
Wilson: You say slavery is a problem, correct?
Harris: Yes!
Wilson: Why?
Harris: . . . . . .
The reasons, if both are opposed ( to slavery, i.e., _owning other humans as property regardless of treatment or purpose_ ), have such different sources, or at least they appear to, and it would take a lot of curiosity, patience, and humility to hear the other.
@@BornOnThursday there is no reason apart from absolute truth. And absolute truth does not come from humans.
@@TheJpep2424 Wow, well, atleast I'm not the one defending slavery, past or present.
I am opposed to slavery only if the person being kept as a slave does not wish to be. The only true measure of morality is what each individual perceives to be desirable.
If you whip one man he might hate it, another might love it.
Slavery implies forced servitude. Forced implies against the expressed will of said slave. That is what makes it immoral.
Peace.
@@plantatheist5883 How about this -
If people want to LARP slavery, have at it, but keep it away from law, and don't try to justify it morally in modern day.
"Sam Harris Demolishes Christianity."
Why not do a reaction to that, Doug? Would be much appreciated.
People like Harris are little more than rhetorical magicians. It's all smoke and mirrors and diversion. And once you see the tricks for what they are it really isn't impressive.
@@ninerocks yup, my thoughts exactly. Only those that want to agree with him don't see the flaws in his arguments.
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
-Deuteronomy 23:15-16
Sounds like the Old Testament would approve of the American underground railroad.
The verse you mention from Deuteronomy regarding how to handle a runaway slave. The concensus among biblical scholars is that this verse refers specifically to foreign slaves that have escaped to your lands from the enemies that the *previous verse* spoke of defeating and the surrounding lands. Hence the " let him live in "your" midst " ( the Israelites) and being able to pick one of "your" (the Israelites) towns to live in.
This once again is no different than that from some of the American chattel slave states that forbid the returning of runaway slaves from other states whilst still permitting slave ownership. For example .....
Pennsylvania ( 1780 )
_"No negro or mulatto slave_ ... _shall be removed out of this state, with the design and intention that the place of abode or residence of such slave or servant shall be thereby altered or changed"_
At 4:03, if the law of Moses forbade the returning of a runaway slave to his master (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), then why did Paul return Onesimus to Philemon?
Christian love.
@@faithsisk6239
Christian love permits one to violate the Mosaic law?
Sure does! But to put itvanother way.Paul wanted healing in that particular household. He asked Onismus(sp) to go back.there was nothing unlawful about that.
@@faithsisk6239
Where do the scriptures tell us that one may violate the Mosaic law in the name of love?
@@lawrencestanley8989 Christ fulfilled the law..
Society seems to be falling apart all around us. Yet, we have all these highly educated and intelligent people at our disposal. Why haven't we fixed all of society's problems? May it be that we have too many people sitting around thinking?
No we have too many stupid people holding us back with barbaric Bronze Age religions.
I usually like everything from Wilson, but this one is an exception. He leaves a lot on the table, and doesn't properly deal with the thrust of Harris' concerns.
(And it seems quite clear that many of the commenters here have not read the last 1/2 of Lev 25 carefully, nor reflected properly on Philemon)
The modern age and political correctness is still built into most people's thinking. They dislike the idea that people can be properly placed into a category of property or that a man can forfeit part of his dignity in the eyes of God.
None of that justifies truly abusing another person, but it often is used to justify it. There is a verse that says, "You were bought at a price; do not allow yourselves to become slaves of men." This really is the only verse you need to move away from a culture of allowing slavery.
Sure. It may still exist as a particularly useful (when done Biblically) way of not only taking care of the lesser moral people, or, unlucky, but the criminal who has a debt he needs to repay, but ultimately this verse implies that following Christ will remove you from the path that would end that way and that the spreading of the gospel naturally becomes the anti-thesis to a society having or needing slaves.
@@fatalheart7382 Modern wealthy western people are just so far removed from the idea of ever thinking about the possibility of pondering the need for slavery. It was a different world back then. Kings back then could not have imagined the luxury even the poor in our country partake in today.
@@fatalheart7382 Good thoughts. I should expand on my original post.
It goes without saying that modern people in the West have a fairly narrow understanding of slavery (they tend to only think of abusive/kidnapped/chattel slavery). That description of slavery simply doesn't fly for every culture in every civilization in every century. So we would need to find a better description. I would propose the following: someone whose labor and location is forcibly controlled by another person. (This definition is loose enough to work in every civilization ...and if you think about it, it also describes prisoners. And as you'll soon see, that's a point worth chewing on.)
Two points: Morally acceptable forms of slavery do not allow kidnapping or cruelty. And both are prohibited in the Bible. That effectively rules out most (if not all) of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade (although there is a curious caveat here. I may or may not discuss it later)
I would agree that volunteering for indentured servitude is less than ideal. But sometimes it can't be helped. EG, If a person accidentally (or intentionally) destroys his neighbor's property and the value of that property is more than he can afford, slavery might well be the moral option. (cf Exod 21:3 and the Targum of Jonathan). This need not apply only to the people of the Mosaic Covenant. Any number of cultures that don't have a large prison system could implement similar stipulations for people who intentionally or unintentionally racked up more debt than they could pay. And that should be seen as a morally acceptable form of slavery.
Another morally acceptable form of slavery in ancient times would be prisoner-of-war slavery. If an invading army is defeated by peace-loving victims, the lives of the aggressors are forfeit. It is at the discretion of the winning army as to whether they should execute their would-be killers or make slaves out of them.
Abraham had that option when he (along with Eschol, Aner and Mamre) slaughtered the 4 Kings of the east in Gen 14. All the attackers who survived the battle - and surely flipped allegiances, as many often did - could be brought into Abe, Eschol, Aner and Mamre's camps as slaves. (See Gen 14:16 and 21 ..and bear in mind that Abe brought back a whole lot more than just Sodom King Bera's stuff: he brought back everything the 4 kings had captured in their winner-take-all battle that stretched over hundreds of miles in v 5-7.).
At any rate - if a person had massive debt or was punished for a crime, slavery could be a moral option in ancient times. And if that slave was acquired through moral means, then he could be bought and sold as property should the master choose to cash out and move on in life. And in such cases, Israelites could buy those slaves, and if they were foreign slaves, they could keep them as property forever, even bequeathing them to their children.
[+]Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you - those born in your land. These may become your property. You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly. (Lev 25:44-46 HCSB)
Sam Harris read the right verses when he gave Shapiro his objections.
Regrettably, Wilson didn't answer them well.
Then there's the NT situation... but I'll leave that for another day.
(Wilson should have addressed why Paul sent Onesimus back at all, especially when the OT prohibited the return of runaway slaves. Yes, Paul implied that Philemon should free him (sorta), but read the passage again: Paul **sent him back**. That necessarily implies that Paul believed that Philemon still owned Onesimus. Much more could be said.)
@@timffoster Well, I'm sure the old church cared much more and knew about their Bibles much more, especially Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit. It was very intentional he "sent him back". If you remember, the Holy Spirit found it only necessary to have the gentiles refrain from food sacrificed to idols, meat of strangled animals, sexual immorality, and meat with blood in it, when they entreated the church about the law of Moses. And, when you read Hebrews, it designates us as under a new law because there is a change in priesthood and the law of Moses was set up under the Levitical priesthood, whose priesthood Jesus was not set up under. But, "You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek."
Jesus was born under the law, but also fulfilled that law. Meaning, Paul is not breaking a command here. Paul, in Christ, is no longer subject to a covenant formed for Israel, but rather, under compulsion to follow Christ's law, the "new" covenant, even though it was set up in a promise to Abraham, more than 400 years before Moses' covenant.
Anyway, even in this matter, both him and Philemon, being Christians, more than likely completely have that verse in mind and what Paul is doing here has multiple layers. Possibly by sending him back Paul is confirming his salvation to Philemon. This man is no longer a slave because technically, he should not have been sent back in the first place within OT rules, but now can be sent back as a "son."
Philemon, in this matter, is also being tested so that Paul can see his heart. "Love your brother as your self." Philemon, being saved, no longer has the right under either covenant to claim him as a slave. But Paul trusted this and gave him over to Philemon, so that Philemon's faith could be displayed, voluntarily, something someone making disciples would do -test the sincerity of those they teach. "Do you not know that Christ is in you? Unless, of course, you fail the test."
But Paul's purpose can be seen in the sentence, "Although I could be bold in Christ to command you." So, I do not believe Paul considered him a slave anymore, the biggest evidence being, not that he kept him, but that he sent him back. XD Still, I'm sure it could be read correctly both ways because of the complexity of what is happening here, which makes it perfect for applying to our needs for how to treat slaves. XD More thoughts are welcome if you have them. I've appreciated your replies so far. :P
@@fatalheart7382 I put myself in Onesimus's place: if I ran away, would I go back? (No)
So why did Onesimus go back? Just because? Did he not have anything better to do?
Because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. So I gave them OTHER statutes that were NOT GOOD and laws through which they could NOT LIVE; I defiled them through their gifts-the sacrifice of every firstborn-that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’
Ezekiel 20:24-26
is this supposed to be an argument against Christianity? Cause I read this and actually understand the context and nod along. Do you think sacrificing the firstborn is a bad thing? Cause it's what we do today, a billion dead from abortion worldwide in 50 years. Are you an abortion abolitionist?
The argument that god was restricted to creating laws for the Jews based on the culture and environment they found themselves in is asinine. God could tell people not to eat shellfish and not to wear mixed fabrics, but he couldn't say, "don't own people as property"??? Seriously?
@Voluntaryist Skeptic, Exodus 21:16
Three points. Why would a Just God allow for slavery? Just because slavery was global in society doesn’t mean it’s justifiable. Secondly, Wilson is right in saying that Harris can’t give an account for his ethics being that he’s an atheist, but that doesn’t mean he’s unable to discern right from wrong or good from bad. Even if theirs cognitive dissonance involved. Thirdly, A difference in the way slavery is viewed or enacted in no way makes it ethical. Slavery is slavery whether it’s conducted by Greeks or Jews. It’s still a bad thing.
There is no such thing as a society without slavery. "You are a slave to whomever you obey." Slavery is when someone else tells you what to do with your labor. The Biblical regulations on slavery encompass numerous things we have today: debt forgiveness, bankruptcy, military service, marriage, wages, voluntary employment, work contracts, loans, financing, habeas corpus, worker's compensation, liability lawsuits, low income housing, work placement assistance, housing allowances, etc etc. If we got rid of slavery, we would have to get rid of all those things
@@horrificpleasantry9474 This is an absurd definition of the term and in no way highlights the inhumane treatment of another individual against his or her consent. I advise you to not manipulate conversations about ethical precepts going forward.
@@colinfarrell33 that is the CORRECT definition of the term. You think it's absurd because you don't like it, because it doesn't suit you, but the fact is you are the one with an anachronistic set of beliefs on the subject.
This is why YOUR definition is absurd.. By insisting on "nonconsent," the Bible no longer authorizes but explicitly forbids slavery. So you no longer have any bone to pick with the Bible on the subject. Good news!
@@horrificpleasantry9474 Slavery is the condition of being legally owned by someone else and forced to work for or obey them. Not “when someone else tells you what to do with your labor” - lame and warped definition. Neither in antiquity nor in America was slavery just “someone else telling you what to do”. It’s not big to diminish it.
Most of the problems around this topic is the shallow definition of slavery in the modern framework, and the illusion that's part of the same worldview that it doesn't exist anymore because we have papers that say so, quite a ''fundamentalist'' worldview I may say.
If they weren’t paid, or paying off a debt, they were slaves.
@@DM-dk7js so that does not exist in any shape or form today?
@@cristianfernandez1874 probably. Not in America thankfully.
I dunno, I think the guy working at Taco Bell making 10 bucks an hour is a slave
@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad what debt?
Why do so many modern Bible supporters viciously deny that their Bible endorsed slavery? "B-b-b-but it was this kind of slavery". Why not just own up to it instead of trying to retcon your religion to fit into modern social norms? "I AM VERY SMART!". No. No you're not. Own up to the slavery principles of the Torah or leave the religion.
“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.”
1 Corinthians 7:23 KJV
I really enjoy Sam Harris and the things he says because it's so easy for someone like Doug to come along and show what an actual fool Harris is. Keep talking Sam. Keep talking.
Cough, that's not what happened...
1626 SHORTS care to explain?
Actually Mr. Wilson's comments were not very convincing. Paul says "be a happy slave, cause you're going to heaven in the next life". And regarding slavery being universal in the old testament times, was God careful not to shock the Jews, to let them know that slavery is bad? If homosexuality was universal, would we also have it as acceptable in the Bible?
@@YZ1N31 The heck it didn't. Read Harris's Moral Landscape book. Then listen to the debate between Harris and Craig where Harris not only cannot defend his position but Craig points out that in the next to last page of Harris's own book he admits that he is left with no real difference between rapists and saints morally speaking. Heck, for that matter, go back to when Harris wrote his letter to a Christian Nation and Doug promptly responded with a Letter to Harris pointing out that Harris has no business lecturing ANYBODY about anything. Figure out why you're defending someone who has no solid ground to even stand on.
@@firstthes2811 Defending someone? I never said I was defending him, I said that what you stated wasn't what happened in the video, and it's not. Harris is taken out of context, and somehow he is all of a sudden a fool. Smh
Sam Harris is just like Hitchens.Harris admits he has never read the Bible.
Exodus 21:16
"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
But OK. Don't steal them. Great morals from your pathetic god.
This punishment is for kidnapping. Not slavery. Slavery was specifically endorsed multiple times. Sell your own daughter, become a permanent slave yourself, women and children don't go free as the males do, buy foreign slaves and pass them on as permanent property. Exodus 21 (Read the whole thing instead of cherry picking) and Lev 25.
One of the Ten Commandments was to not covet, literally a thought crime, but owning slavery had to be permitted because of the sinfulness of men. The stupidity of that argument is baffling
The scriptural understanding of "slave" is nothing like what we think of it.
What’s the difference?
I think you are only saying that now because slavery is now recognized as such a moral wrong. Slavery in the Bible was used to justify the African slave trade for hundreds of years.
^ Oh I see we’ve got the two atheist trolls jumping on here to get the chance to make a comment on how bad they believe Christianity is.
Well, "how we think" of African slavery is wholly influenced by Hollywood propaganda, so...
@@xxxViceroyxxx Good Point.
Great video! I would just add that slaves in the Greco-Roman world weren’t necessarily considered chattel (although they sometimes were). Slaves in New Testament times could be educated and could home professions like doctors and tutors. Slaves with more compassionate masters could have had a better quality of life than most poor free people of the time.
I think he's talking from a legal perspective. One could be treated well being a slave, but there was no law whatsoever pointing to it. Same way our dogs live a better life than many hundred of thousands people have, at least from one point of view - and this was true before we were enforced to it (at least here in Spain).
Why not talk about Leviticus 25? That's chattel slavery the Hebrews practiced and Hebrews even sold their own kids into foreign slavery Exodus 21. Let's stop making EXCUSES for what we KNOW is EVIL and WRONG and trying to dress up in any way that slavery was a good thing. Pathetic
Without freedom, there is zero way to claim that they were better off. They were literally owned by another human being. There is no acceptable argument on this. The Bible is just wrong. Especially if it's also claimed that morality is also coming from the same book. Morality and slavery will never mix. Ever. And there's no justification good enough for it
@@chrispfeifer7628 Thank you for speaking out and you are certainly more kind about it than I am. It gets old listening to excuses for slavery dressed up as theology or hearing Christians just blindly say you don't understand the context without reading or citing then explaining the scripture or attacking your personal character saying you just won't repent and love your sin......there is no excuse to own another human being as property for any reason. And the Exodus story makes no sense, God brought the Hebrews out of Egyptian slavery to a......"better slavery"? Slavery of their own Hebrew kinsmen and slavery of foreigners. When a Hebrew is hard up for money he can sell his kids. This is sick.
@@chrispfeifer7628 So where's your morality coming from?
God said don't eat shell fish but nothing about slavery
From now on my nickname for Sam Harris is Ponyman.
Also important to remember that slavery was not tolerated by christians until only 200 years ago. Rather, slavery largely died out after decline of rome so was not a systemic issue faced by society until the slave trade arose in the new world. And when it arose there was vigorous opposition from dominican priests like las casas and vittoria who founded modern human rights theory, not to mention the many papal bulls asserting the same, as well as various inconsistent attempts by the spanish to ban slavery of the indians. This is unique in human history.
"Rather, slavery largely died out after decline of Rome..."
In North Africa alone, the Arab/Islamic slave trade was active from the early 7th century until the 1960s. Doesn't even include the inner African slave trade let alone the rest of the world.. Not sure why you're claiming it died out?
To be fair to Harris there is Leviticus 25:39-46, for foreign slaves is not just indentured servitude but actual slaves.
Still voluntary and paid
@Horrific Pleasantry I have seen all the text on slavery in the Bible and as far as I know only Israelites qualified for that which is why it is said that to a Israelite they could not rule over them as such like property which you don’t pay for that like an indentured servant could be paid, unless you know of any other principle but I know of any other
@@horrificpleasantry9474Wrong. It was chattel slavery. Owning people as property. Read it again.
Read the whole chapter. That passage is about the Year of Jubilee, not slavery.
In the Year of Jubilee, Hebrew slaves had to released, but Gentile slaves could be kept until their debts to their debtees were paid off, even if it meant being transferred to kin as inheritance, or sold so the debtee could recoup the value of the debt immediately.
BUT - - before you get too far down that road, you have to start by realizing that 18th century slaves were not like Greco-Roman slaves, and neither were like ancient Hebrew slaves. All 3 cultures used the same root word of 'slave', but they meant radically different things by it. You can tell this by the rules each culture had for how a person became a slave and how a person was freed from slavery.
- Encyclopedia Britannica lists 6 ways a person in Greco-Roman culture could become a slave. 3 of them were capital offenses in ancient Hebrew culture.
- For example, in GR culture, if you kidnapped some wayward non-Roman, you could keep him as a slave and/or buy/sell such persons. In ancient Hebrew culture, ANYONE found in possession of a kidnapped person would be executed. Period.
- In ancient Hebrew culture, you could only become a slave if you sold yourself to pay off debts, or if a tribunal found you guilty of a crime and you lacked the funds to compensate the injured party. You became their slave until the debt was paid off (or the master could sell you for the amount of the debt if he didn't want to abide with you for that amount of time). The sold slave would work for the new master until the debt was paid (or the Year of Jubilee came [unless it was a Gentile slave]), and after the debt was paid, he was free (whether Hebrew or Gentile). Keeping him beyond his debt was kidnapping. And we know what happens to kidnappers, right? Right??
- Slavemasters were NOT allowed to be cruel to their slaves. If the cruelty hit a certain level, the slave went free, and the master lost out on his debt.
- When a slave was released, the master was to provide him with material goods so he could make his way back out into the world, and he was to do so joyfully, treating his ex-slave as the brother he was.
- If a slave's debts surpassed what he could work off in his lifetime, that debt could be passed on to his heirs (we do the same with our tax laws today).
If all of that sounds immoral to you, I would invite you to be morally consistent and demand the immediate release of all prison inmates everywhere. After all, they are defacto slaves to the government. Like ancient slaves, they do not control their location or their labor, and they can be transferred from master (ie, warden) to master without their say-so, and their wardens cannot be cruel to them, and after they've paid their debt, they are to be freed. (If you boil it down to its core, prison inmates are indeed essentially identical to ancient slaves.)
Thanks.
@@timfoster5043 Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly describes chattel slavery of foreigners. There's no getting around this. No jubilee, and they could be passed down as property to your kids. And of course that's immoral. It's exactly what we would expect from a brutal Bronze Age culture with a fake god.
Did the Southern Baptist Church ever endorse slavery? If so, why?
Why doesn’t anyone ever mention Exodus 21:16 when discussing Biblical slavery; “Now one who kidnaps someone, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall certainly be put to death’” Ex. 21:16 NASB. This is a direct prohibition of chattel slavery punishable by death. The forms of “slavery,” found in the Bible are not chattel slavery. They were mostly volunteer servitude as a form of welfare. There were also prisoners taken in war that are called slaves. They were much like those prisoners housed at Guantanamo Bay or other prisons across America, but they were not chattel slaves.
The books in the bible will outlast anything Dr. Harris and his peeps write.
Chattel slavery is comprised of 2 things:
1. The slave is owned as property
2. The slave cannot escape their bondage
Both of these characteristics are reflected in the bible. In the bible you can:
1. Purchase human beings
2. Own them as property (chattel slavery)
3. Beat them
4. Pass them down to your children as property
5. Own them forever (chattel slavery)
Paul said, as we all know, to the cheeky, philosophic-minded Greeks,
that God was THE CREATOR, Lord of heaven and earth - that's right - He is the Lord of all,
and that He had MADE mankind out of ONE blood, AND that He had OVERLOOKED their past ignorance,
but was NOW commanding ALL men to REPENT - not just "believe" - because He was preparing
to judge the world, an irrevocable action with eternal consequences. He would say to the Romans,
that men were WITHOUT EXCUSE; We have, since, "softened that word a bit.
For Solitaire - ua-cam.com/video/693Li7-aph0/v-deo.html
I tell the people that if you say we must all believe what is best for us. That means I can do what I want, therefore let me step in front of the cash line I have the power why not. If I repeat it to them long enough maybe they will listen.
I'm actually thankful for Sam Harris because if it wasn't for him either lying about The Bible or showing that he hasn't really read The Bible then I never would have become a Christian. His handling of Luke 18 was just stupid.
_"lying about the bible"_
Do you deny that it says to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* ???
@@trumpbellend6717 alright I'll play along. What verse are you talking about? Also I said Sam Harris lied about the context of Luke 18 and this Is a verifiable fact. If you want the links to the evidence I'll post em
@@breakingtheidols6531
Leviticus 25 44 - 46
_"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have-from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves"_
@@trumpbellend6717" Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." Exodus 21:16
If we look at this section of scripture there is a difference between manstealing or modern slavery and what is considered indentured servitude where you work to pay off a debt. Some would sell themselves into slavery so that they can survive or because they had a good master who treats them well.
If Exodus 21 was written in general then it would even apply to the slaves of other nations. If an Israelite had a slave that was forced into slavery through kidnapping from another nation then this law would still apply.
@@breakingtheidols6531 who could ever forget the classic *Exodus 21 21*
_"If you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"_
_"There is to be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"_
🤮🤮🤮🤢
If you want any type of example as to how Christianity viewed slavery look at the Empire of Eastern Rome. Under Christian law and influence you saw a complete change in how slaves were viewed. From object to subject. Were it not for the crumbling economy due to Arab invasions Eastern Rome would've been the first people to outlaw slavery worldwide. Too bad the Muslims sacked Byzantium 50 years prior to western explorers searches for routes to India and Manchuria
What’s your point?
@@Jambuc829 what?
Can you read what’s your point?
Sarah abused Hagar until she tried to escape. There was no law and she was treated terribly.
Correction: Hagar mistreated Sarai and treated her with contempt. Gen 16:4-5.
After getting permission from her husband, Sarai afflicted Hagar Gen 16:6. Then she ran away. And the Angel of the Lord told her to return Gen 16:9.
If you read up on the Mittani and Hurran tablets from the day, what happened in that scenario was typical and comported with established cultural norms (ie, the laws of the day). Namely, a barren noble lady could give her handmaiden to her husband to produce an heir for her; if she later bore a child, she had the option to keep the firstborn surrogate as heir or promote her own son as heir. And a nobleman without a son could even appoint his servant/slave as an heir.
See NIV Archeological Study Bible for more details.
Thanks.
@@timfoster5043
Abraham didn't intervene to help his own child.
Abraham was pretty conflicted.
@@jamesirvin7799 In Hurran and Mittani cultures of the era, the heir status of the adopted son was determined by the wife, not the husband. Since it was the wife's handmaiden who produced the heir for the wife.
It is reasonable to assume the same cultural particulars applied with Abraham and Sarah since they lived in Hurran (aka Padan Aran) for a time.
@@timfoster5043 Ishmael is the son of Abraham. Abraham was favoring Sarah. According to the Bible.
@@jamesirvin7799 I'm not seeing why that point is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Of course Ishmael was Abraham's son.
But in Mesopotamian law, his fate was at Sarai's disposal because it was her handmaiden that bore the child for her mistress. And according to the laws of the day, if she bore an heir naturally, she reserved the right to keep or lay aside the older son produced by the surrogate (Hagar, in this case).
What really gets my goat is that in the same breath Sam Harris hotly condemns slavery in all its forms, he will enthusiastically endorse (and I do mean endorse, not the strawman version of "endorse" that Harris is using in the clip Doug Wilson is reacting to) all of us to be enslaved by the state in the name of "reducing suffering".
I don’t get beat at my job and I can quit and work for myself
@@hughjanus2781In a state-controlled economy, you don't get to decide anything about your job, not who you work for, not where you work, not how many hours, not your pay, not your benefits, not even if you can quit and work for yourself or anybody else.
Sam Harris is kinda embarrassingly bad at arguing, definitely the weakest of the so called 4 horsemen
In fairness it's cause he actually tries to defend the indefensibility of atheism, where Dawkins just postures
Yes.
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
Why is slavery wrong in the Bible?
💪💪💪
Did you even watch the video or just google one verse as your proof?
@@samgam23 Google
@@samgam23 I didn’t have to Google the verse. I was already well aware of it.
I was hoping this video would shed some REAL light on the topic but was sorely disappointed.
I still haven't found a really good explanation for the verses that follow (explanation that doesn't blame "translation" or "context" or "welllll look at these other verses.....let's ignore these ones):
Exodus 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
Ephesians 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
Leviticus 25:39-46 describes a two-tier model of slavery that distinguishes Israelites from foreign slaves. It requires that Israelites be indentured only temporarily while foreigners can be enslaved as chattel (permanent property).
Strange and abrupt ending
9 minutes of a man desperately making excuses for a 2000 year old myth
No excuses need to be made because there's nothing embarrassing. I bet you didn't know that the Bible forbids returning runaway slaves. You probably didn't listen to the video to hear that. But the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law which provoked tensions leading to the Civil War did require slaves to be returned, or you could face hefty fines. So you would have to admit that American slavery, at least in that regard, was against the Bible, not inspired by it.
@@horrificpleasantry9474It is absolutely embarrassing for you that you find yourself tapdancing around the Bible's endorsement of chattel slavery.
Good question, Doug. How does an atheist justify arguing that slavery is wrong? How would he convince an Arab or Viking slave trader from the past, who believed that slavery was highly beneficial.... for his people.
So essentially it's ok to own another person as property if you tap dance and mentally justify it enough. This is disgusting
By what standard?
@@dotwarner17 any standard of decency , I'm not interested in the presup bullshit about grounding and standards it's all circular nonsense , move along and defend your moral thug of a God somewhere else
So sad to see decent people trying to defend an absolutely horrible 2000 year old book
Sam Harris has no room to talk about ethics after the things he said about Trump / Biden / Covid.
Such as?
My thing is this, you day that god allowed the actions of sinful man (slavery) until he slowly phased it out. The whole point of the old testament was god creating a holy people who did not participate in the sinful actions of the surrounding nations. Wasn't that the whole reason for him forbidding homosexuality and beastiality? Why couldn't he forbid slavery as well? I don't see how god NOT forbidding something isn't seen as condoning when there were actions that he DID forbid (homosexuality, child sacrifice, etc...)
Are you understanding free will? Man doing good when he has the option to be bad is true goodness. Men not being allowed to be bad, and as a result being good, is a fools paradise. That's why God doesn't disallow anything, he grants free will, then through Jesus shows how to repent, in other words how to live your life. This was a good cure for slavery.
consider a lawless society where the only provision and protection is found in being owned by another person. slavery then becomes a genuine good, of course only providing the owner believes in Christ and abides by Christian principles described by the apostles. we see the same thing in the time of the judges when Hannah's husband took on two wives. it was difficult for any woman to find a good, God-fearing man, so God often blessed a man who took on multiple wives, like David and Jacob. ideally, one man and one woman form a marriage but this isn't an ideal world. this wasn't a question of polygamy (sin, yes) so much as it was a question of provision and protection for the women. SO CONTROVERSIAL
His argument against Christianity isn't a good one. If the Bible says something we don't agree with, we are to change the way we think about that thing. If the Bible endorsed slavery, I would have changed my mind and also endorsed slavery, but there is onw verse that answers this problem of slavery as we known it in the modern era very well:
Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Slavery is all around us...most of us have sold ourselves into slavery...it just doesn't look like how we imagine it to be is all.
That's a stretch.
@@BornOnThursday no it's you guys who are stretching. Slavery is when you don't have a right to the product of your own labor, and you don't get to choose where to go or what to do, with respect to the authority of the one who is your master.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 As I said.
@@horrificpleasantry9474 So when slavery became illegal in America what became illegal?
@@hughjanus2781 slavery is still legal
Who is Sam Harris?
Some super famous atheist.
A pseudo intellectual and I say that without malice as someone with a moderately high IQ (140 or so)
An atheist straw manning ? No! Hahahaha
More people need to watch this video!
If anybody hasn't seen Jordan Peterson's talks with Sam Harris on Sam's podcast "making sense" they are VERY revealing as to Sam's mindset. I remember Sam being talked into a corner by Jordan at one moment (and Jordan was at times, too) where he got frustrated and asked Jordan, "Name one single thing that humans can experience that there is no empirical measurement for." Clearly expecting Jordan to be stumped, and without missing a beat, Jordan says, "Music." And Sam audibly staggers.
The first podcast is criticized for get caught looping around a single topic - the definition of truth, but I found the conversation to be extremely insightful. Likewise, their 4-part on- stage discussion, totaling about 8 hours, was phenomenal in getting to know the minds of those two.
Music is measured in "tempo" "beats" "bars" "measures" ect
*metre* also spelled Meter, in music, rhythmic pattern constituted by the grouping of basic temporal units, called beats, into regular measures, or bars; in Western notation, each measure is set off from those adjoining it by bar lines.
@@trumpbellend6717 You're describing mechanical components of music. One has to assume the example being referred to was (rightly or wrongly) the inability to measure the human emotional connection to music. I'm not here to stump for or against Jordan Peterson, but I think it's a little purposefully oversimplistic to suggest that the human experience with music can be summarised by 'rhythm' (let alone Western metrics for measuring and notating rhythm).
@@Mic1904 sorry but the question specifically referred to "empirical measurements" now if you merely want to point out that all emotions are not measured empirically fine. But Petersons response was "MUSIC" not the "emotions felt" when listening to music.
@@trumpbellend6717 Yeah, but the question asked for "Name one single thing that humans can _experience_ that there is no empirical measurement for", not "list every mechanical metric you can think of that Western music theory has provided to define (only) rhythm". I think you're much, much smarter than to truly believe (with all intellectual honesty) that you think Jordan Peterson has somehow never heard of the concept of sheet music notation before, and that in the context of the discussion and question he wasn't blatantly referring to the wider human experience (it is, after all 'experience' that was asked for) of music. I'm not asking you to find his argument believable or convincing (I have much to disagree with the man on), but let's actually deal with his case with some degree of fairness.
@@Mic1904 To be honest I fail to comprehend how the question could have possibly be regarded as a "gotya" if it was talking about "emotions" .
Literally EVERY experience can be associated with an emotion, or a descriptive word for which there is no empirical measurement, love hate, fear, anger, beauty, pain, even boredom. Why would anyone think it a difficult question and be "staggered" by the response. Why would Petersons answer be regarded as in any way impressive if this was all he was required to do ??? I would find it harder to find one single thing that a human can experience that there IS an empirical measurement for 🙄🤔
It's nonsensical.
Doug, I love your channel, and I truly hope you are correct in your assessment of this, but it seems like you are reading into the Bible what you want it to say on this matter, rather than taking it as it is. The idea that God had to ease humanity out of slavery but not out of idolatry, adultery, sexual sin, theft, etc., seems like a stretch, at best. With everything else, God just says "stop doing it" but with slavery, He just makes it a little more humane? As in, it's wrong to outright beat your slave directly into death, but if he survives a few days before succumbing to his injuries, it's okay?
“And if someone strikes his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his property." Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB)
Because unlike the other sins, slavery was a large institution in much of the world. It could not be solved by "don't act like this" it was a way of life and a engraved institution. However, the Old Testament gave a law to slavery that didn't exist. It gave slavery rules, and injected what morality it could into it. Slavery has always been brutal and horrific, but in an attempt to moderate slavery, the Old Testament gave those rules. These are no injections, it is truth.
@@Jigglywhiteboy7156 I hear you making claims, but your argument is not compelling. I see no evidence that God couldn't simply command His people, whom He just miraculously freed from slavery themselves, that "you cannot have slaves"? Not to mention that nowhere in all of Scripture is slavery condemned. Slaves are commanded to be good slaves, and masters to be good masters -- but I am unaware where slavery - aka ownership of another person as an item of property -- is condemned. I'm open to an argument to the contrary, but it will require something much more persuasive that what you have presented.
@@sbag11 Scripture doesn't condemn slavery because slavery for most of human history was seen as amoral. But for slavery itself, the Bible does not wish to condemn slavery as it mentions how one should be a "slave" to the Lord. And that following the Lord as His slave would set you free.
Peter 2:16 "Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves."
As I said, the Bible sets rules for slavery to moderate it. It says for masters to be moral and fair, as they themselves are slaves to the Lord.
Collosians 4:1-"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."
And as you know the Bible also asks slaves to follow their masters and be good. The Bible is simply taking an amoral stance on slavery while also bringing morality to it to make it a just institution to the degree it can be.
It is implied heavily throughout the Bible that people should be free, as when they are free they can follow the Lord and do what is just.
Galatians 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery"
The slavery under Eygpt was oppressive and cruel, and thus they were set free. The slavery in Rome was also cruel. Cruel slavery is bad, fair slavery is amoral. The idea is that God will set you free.
The master described in dueteronomy, who strikes his slave, was not a follower of God. God condemned this behavior from His people.
Biblical slavery is not immoral. It is voluntary and slaves were treated well. In the same way employment today is not immoral. Some employers mistreat their employees, as some masters mistreated their slaves, but that didn't inherently make the practice immoral. Remove the voluntary aspect of it (which was basically every nation that didn't follow God) and it changes completely.
@@GameOn0827 What are you talking about? The reference in Exodus was God's law to His people.
Yes read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25
1Cor 13: 8Charity never faileth: but whether prophecies, they shall fail; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these charity.
How is John Brown away from the Bible??
one really needs to become a scholar of hebrew culture to tell atheists that they're wrong about this.
Are you saying morality is not objective but dependant upon time place culture ect ??? So now you're arguing for a form of moral relativism, ironically the very thing theists acuse atheists of hmm 🤔
The Christian worldview: feet planted firmly on The Rock, Jesus Christ.
The atheistic worldview: feet planted firmly in the air, waving around aimlessly and, often, angrily.
The Christian world view: owning people as property is just fine.
The Atheist worldview: No its not you sicko, it immoral.
At least we aren’t trying to make excuses for slavery
Show me wide spread evidence of slavery in Isreal either in the literature or material culture though being man stealing was punishable by death
Of course, if determination is true as Harris holds, what does it all matter anyway?
Why build a car if its going to end up in the scrap yard ??? My life has the meaning and purpose *I* give it. No magical invisible being required.. But hey if you think everything must have some intrinsic "purpose" and that a "God" created everything then tell me, just what is the "purpose" of bone cancer that causes untold suffering and kills millions of innocent children ??
How about Tsunamis, earthquakes, famine, disease ect ??? Just how does this reconcile with an omniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent God ???
@Dave, Exodus 21:16
@@willielee5253 nothing to do with slavery
I'm getting a real "penumbras of the scripture" vibe from this video...
Man stealing is a capital offense in the Bible. No need or space for penumbras or emanations.
In the New Testament..the Greek term "doulos" is interpreted as servant & slave...
If one is too proud to be a doulos/slave of the LORD...one is "too proud to be saved"..
GOD enslaved Isreal to its enemies on numerous occasions when they refused to obey the Law..
The Scriptures do endorse slavery as a necessary institution in certain instances...
It's cowardly for Christians to try to avoid this or explain it away...
I'm proud to be a doulos of THE MOST HIGH..
💯 agree. We First have to put in perspective that man who drinks a iniquity like water is in no place to put God to trial and impose our warped sense of morality on him. God is the author of love and the author of justice. Evil men do not understand justice.
@Exodus 21:16
Yes, it does.
There are no distinctions.......slavery is owning another human regardless of the contract.
If God had a backbone he would have said ''never take slaves under any circumstance, and if someone owes a debt then simply give them employment without actual ownership of that person''
If God can say ''love your enemies'' or ''sell all your possessions and give to the poor'' then he could have easily said ''do not own slaves'' without it being a controversial command.
The fact that abolitionists were even required to begin with shows the failure of God to give a clear command to humans that slavery was wrong.
If your allowed to beat your slave as long as they dont die.......then slavery is indeed accepted and allowed in the bible.
@brian bridges, Exodus 21:16
@@willielee5253 yep, slavery allowed, disgraceful book.
@@brianbridges8124 your point of view exceeds my point. I was basically using the bible as a point of reference.
@@willielee5253 and you used it terribly then, there is no part if the bible that ever makes up for saying "slaves can be beaten as long as they dont die"
Not only does this accept that slavery exists but it allows slave owners to assault their slaves to near death . That's a sadistic monstrous God right there. Maybe instead of just writing names of bible verses you could actually add something substantial.
Even granting the differences between Greco-Roman slavery and Hebrew slavery..... it's still not anything resembling a good or moral law.
Far more moral than what we have today. A living wage, complete debt forgiveness, equal protection under the law, AND free food and housing?? These days the best you can hope for is mostly equal protection unless you're guilty of self defense, and a maybe livable wage.
Every time Sam Harris speaks of the Bible naively he refers to Jainism. I hope he would come up with something at least new. Come on! He doesn't know the Bible.
Sam Harris also said he wants Trump supporters locked up "for the common good." So by inforcing conformity to a single idea, i.e. liberal/left-wing politics, he endorses slavery.
He's in deep trouble and needs prayer.
Where did Sam Harris say that?
I suspect you are lying.
No response?
I accept your concession that you lied.